Mutual Loyalty and a Definition of the Anglican Communion

The oldest and probably still most widely accepted understanding of the Communion is that offered by the 1930 Lambeth Conference and subsequently quoted in the preamble to TEC’s constitution. It defined the Communion as a “fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury,” which have in common “the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer”; that “they are particular [dioceses] or national Churches”; and that “they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.”[From "South Carolina: A Communion Response" over at The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., here (H/T Covenant: when you come together to eat, wait for one another)] 

That's the best definition I've seen so far. I can see why the Covenant is creating such a stir. It smacks too uncomfortably of "central legislative and executive authority." But I fear "mutual loyalty" is being stretched, even abused, of late.

Authority is given, power is taken. Just so with loyalty. True mutual loyalty must be earned and given out of trust. If I'm going to do what I feel "the Spirit" is calling me to do, even though it is done in a "duly constituted" manner, and even though you and I have never come to consensus on the rightness of the matter through "common counsel" in "conference," and even though I know you think what I'm doing is wrong and contrary to the teaching of Scripture, I am the betrayer of the "mutual loyalty" in our fellowship, not you.

How, then, should I behave when I feel my loyalty has been stretched and betrayed?

I found an uncomfortable answer today. David Lamb teaches Old Testament and writes a blog, Is the God of the Old Testament…?, in which he finishes a short series on Jeremiah 29:11, "everyone's favourite verse in the whole Bible," and also the verse most taken out of context, with this, on what he calls the best verse in Jeremiah 29:

Seek the welfare of the city where I sent you into exile, pray to YHWH on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare (Jer 29:7). 

What? Yes, those brutal, barbarian Babylonians who ravaged your land and enslaved you, you need to love them, bless them and pray for them. That sounds like something Jesus would say (Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you: Matt. 5:44). 

I think it’s wonderful that God has plans to bless me and give me a future and a hope, but according to Jeremiah 29:7 that promise is tied up with me seeking the welfare of my enemy-neighbors. God wants to bless me, and part of the way that he does that is by calling me to be a blessing to others, even people who I could reasonably hate. [From "The plans God has for me? (Jeremiah 29 Part III)" here]

Love, bless, pray for and seek the welfare of my betrayers? That's stretching loyalty too far the other way. Isn't it?

(David, by the way,  has also written a book with the eye-catching title, God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?)

On "Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other"

I follow Mark Driscoll's blog over at The Resurgence. He's been doing a series on various theological topics…short pieces from a reformed Calvinist perspective. Martin Luther is the subject of today's post. Driscoll quotes Luther's response when he was called upon to recant his reformed views:

Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear, and distinct grounds of reasoning . . . then I cannot and will not recant, because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen.

That would be my challenge to Anglican leaders who are advocating doctrinal revision around the authority of Scripture and sexuality: instruct and convince me with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear and distinct grounds of reasoning.

Instead, the tools of Anglican instruction and convincing I read about are changed locks, lifted licences, punitive litigation,  and name-calling.

God help us, indeed.

Prayer For a Guy Trying Too Hard to Make Things Happen

This was one of this week's Readings for Reflection in A Guide to Prayer

Lord, I know not what I ought to ask of thee; thou only knowest what I need…I simply present myself before thee, I open my heart to thee. Behold my needs which I know not myself. Smite, or heal; depress me, or raise me up; I adore all thy purposes without knowing them; I am silent; I offer myself in sacrifice; I yield myself to thee; I would have no other desire than to accomplish thy Will. Teach me to pray. Pray thyself in me. Amen. (Francois Fénelon)

I adore all your purposes without knowing them. Now there's a spiritual discipline.

Not a bad prayer for a guy who has to stay. Sigh.

O, yes.

And, O no! some days.

A Case For Faithful Anglican Staying

As is so often the case; ideas, opinions and thoughts about what concerns me float about in my mind "without form" until one day I come across something which crystalizes and settles them into a coherent form. This, from Philip Turner, Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner over at VirtueOnline, is such a something:

It is now the case that the people we know do not see any near possibility of reform and they no longer pursue such purposes. They have recognized the futility for near term of politically realistic change. However, they do hold certain convictions, and they do have certain commitments that give shape to their present actions-actions that hardly qualify as passive. These convictions and commitments are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states. They grow from trust that God will use faithful witness in his own time and in his own way to bring about his purposes-purposes that do not stem from our imaginings or our desires but from God's justice and God's mercy.

This is where I now find myself

The experience of two General Synods have convinced me of how unlikely reform is in the Anglican Church of Canada and the futility of any attempts at Biblical or orthodox theological argument in the face of the well meaning but tragically mistaken revisionist tide. Yet this is the time and place into which God, in his wisdom, has called me.

So patient and enduring witness it is 

Turner, Seitz and Radner are committed to: 

witness rather than a strategy designed to bring about a desired future state. Our work is not to take this kingdom by force of design and tactic, but to make a faithful witness, practice faithful endurance, and wait upon the Lord to see what he will make of what we do and say.

Certainly my attempts at "design and tactic" have not been particularly fruitful in the wider church, or in my parish, for that matter.

I find I am strategically challenged, alas

I am, however, capable of faithful endurance. I don't much like it, but, with the Lord's help, it's doable. 

The whole piece here.

And not only that…

In a piece by Timothy Morgan of Christianity Today, one Russell Levenson Jr, Rector of the largest Episcopal church in the United States, explains why he and his parish are staying:

Daniel had to stay in Babylon, but did not abandon his faith. Jeremiah was not given another Israel. Ezekiel had to preach to the dry bones. When Jesus and his message were completely rejected, he did not leave. He wept. He stayed. He did not move on to Egypt. He stayed and faithfully preached when they believed and when they did not believe.

John Stott's Counsel

Levenson visited with John Stott recently. They talked and prayed about the challenges facing the Anglican Communion. When he asked Stott for his counsel, Stott said:

If I were you, I would stay … you have the truth on your side … and I think you are called to stay and faithfully preach the gospel. Remember what Max Warren said, 'the church is evidence of God's patience.' And we just don't know what fruit or reform will be born as a result of a long period of faithful preaching and witness to the evangelical faith we share.

Faithful staying, witness, endurance and preaching…

…while leaving the outcomes to the LORD are the order of the day for the likes of  Turner, Seitz, Radner and Levenson. Me, too, I guess.

O Lord, write these on my heart and may our faithfulness lead to Kingdom fruitfulness in the Anglican church. 

Read the whole interview with Levenson here.

Surf's Up!

Now here's an interesting bit from over at Covenant by By Dr Jean Meade entitled, "Please Don't Go." Dr Meade finishes with this intriguing quote and application of the story of Paul's shipwreck in Acts:

Bishop Tom Wright recently wrote, with respect to our present woes in the Anglican Communion, that we should reflect on the ending of the Book of Acts: even if the ship breaks up on the rocks, what matters is that we survive to preach the Word unhindered like St Paul in Rome. But I would add that we should consider that the Angel told Paul that every last one of them on that boat had to stay in it for them to be assured that all their lives would be saved. And they did and they were!

Read it all here.

The Pain of Separation and of Staying

We've lost some people from StB over the last 13 or 14 months because of decisions made at the last two General Synods. It weakens us and it hurts.

Some thoughts from a couple of Episcopalian priests who are staying for now; first Dr Ephraim Radner...

Some here think that I intend simply to “go down with the ship”, as some kind of virtue. That is not the case: there is no “intention” involved. I am bound to a ship – the Anglican Communion – that is currently “going down”. That is what a vow consists of.

When I was at seminary almost 20 years ago I remember the distinct and, I thought at the time, humourous, feeling that I was tying myself to the mast of a sinking ship. Laff! Laff! I, too, am bound to this ship until I receive further orders.

Read the rest of Radner's piece here.

And then, there's Fr Tony Clavier:

IF the Episcopal Church casts itself adrift from the Anglican Communion in a complete and total fashion, or is drummed out of the regiment by recognized authority, then many of us shall have to make shift for ourselves as best we can. But while it remains possible, while we remain free, while we are enabled to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments and give mutual care to the faithful, we are not free, on the basis of our personal opinions, however widely shared, to abandon the church. I do not doubt that many in good faith and conscience feel called out to other places and fields -an “otherness” which may be next door- and I really have no quarrel with their enthusiastic recommendations, but I am haunted by the old story which suggests that when people leave the church, even because of persecution and suffering, they weaken both the church they leave and that which they erect. "

It also "remains possible" for me in the Anglican Church of Canada (as maddening and frustrating as it is), and I, too, remain free and am enabled to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments and give mutual care to the faithful. Neither am I free at the moment, on the basis of my personal opinions, distress and distaste for what has transpired, to abandon my post.